Talk Elections

I had another poll just like this one, but it has apparently dropped off the face of the earth, so I am therefore starting a new one. 

And here are the links for anyone who needs references:
-----------------------------------------

Roman Catholic Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church)

Eastern Orthodox Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodoxy)

Reform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Judaism) Judaism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism)

Conservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Judaism) Judaism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism)

Orthodox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Judaism) Judaism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism)

Mahayana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana) Buddhism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism)

Theravada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theravada) Buddhism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism)

Hinduism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism)

Sikhism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism)

Sunni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni) Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam)

Shi'a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi%27a) Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam)

Neo-Paganism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Paganism)

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints)

Baha'i (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith)

Pentacostalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentacostalism)

Anglicanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglicanism)

Lutheranism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheranism)

Methodism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodism)

Church of Scientology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology)

If anything, Therevada Buddhism .

Scientology, LDS.

Hinduism would be the most convenient, i guess

Anglicanism
Methodism
eh, Reform Judaism I guess

I'd try Therevada Buddhism too. I got this as the highest ranked religion after secular humanism, non-theism etc. in one of those online quizzes once.

I am several religions so if I ever wanted to be a religion member, I can just move to one of those.

Theravada Buddhism (or Mahayana, I really like and respect Buddhism), reform Judaism, Anglicanism.

I protest against the lack of inclusion of Presbyterianism.

Well, my religion has evolved from methodism, so that would be my #1 pick. I'm not sure on the differences between the two Buddhist sects. Can anyone elaborate? Buddhism might be fun too.

No one's converting to mainstream Protestantism anyway.

This is sort of hard to answer.  I can judge religions by their matching to my personal views, but if I'd have to think differently to subscribe to a religion, so the question is essentially moot.

Out of the ones listed, definitely Mahayana Buddhism.

One of the Buddhist philosophies would be most similar to what I believe already.

First, there are fast growing conservative Presbyterian churches. See www.pcanet.org and www.opc.org . There's more to Presbyterianism than the pseudo-church PC(USA). Second, even if presbyterianism was just "Mainstream" protestantism, Methodism was included, and that one doesn't even have any conservative denominations.

I would definitely convert to either Roman Catholicism (i.e. the Latin Rite), or Eastern Orthodoxy.  I am still uncertain between Judaism, Baha'i, or Islam.  Since I am apparently already circumcised (I'm guessing it happened when I was just born, since I have fortunately no memory of it occurring), it wouldn't take much for me to become a Jew if I so chose. 

apparently circumcised?

Quaker or Liberal Judaism.

I would prefer a quiet faith.

I think my facetiousness was a little bit lost.  :P

I don't know, some form of Buddhism, I guess.  Maybe Quaker.  The question is kind of hard to answer, given that the entire reason I don't subscribe to an organized religion is because I don't believe what you're supposed to believe if you belong to that religion.

Catholic, Reform Jew, Islam.

LSD.

Out of those listed most likely Therevada Buddhism. I have always been fascinated by Buddhism and consider it an interesting religion. As for the one that I would actually kind of like to convert to would be Unitarian Universalism.

Perhaps because it failed the important test of being funny. :P

I converted away from Presbyterianism. I'm okay with it not being there. (Plus, Presbyterians make up less than 1% of the US, but Methodists are something like 5%, including an overall plurality in Delaware.)

Right now I'm Roman Catholic

Anglicanism
Reform Judaism
Conservative Judaism

I don't know enough about Buddhism to make a firm decision, but it seems to have a negative view of life. The whole "life is meaningless" vibe is kind of a downer.

If you convert to Hinduism, do you have to accept the caste system? I wonder if they even allow non-Indians to join.

If Quaker was listed, I would have picked that over Reform Judaism. They are my favorite American Religion. The original freedom fighters.

I agree with Bono that more Protestant sects should have been in the poll: Lutheran, Presbytarian, Baptist, etc. There are very few Lutherans around here, they seem to concentrate in the Midwest.


Tweed, are you joking or serious? First the Romney sig and now this.... Please say its a joke.

all organized religion is kooky so if forced to convert I might as well go all-out.  I find the history of LDS and its offshoots legitimately interesting.

LDS is one thing, as much as I disagree with them sometimes. But Germany is on the right track as far as Scientology goes. They are a science fiction writer's tax exempt celebrity-only project.

That's dead.


Yes.

The Dalits in India beg to differ.

Dead in most places, dead among the religious leaders. Maybe gasping for life in a few rural backwaters.

Voted for the Buddhisms and Ganglianism.  Next would've been reform Joue.

Joue?

Eastern Orthodox, Conservative Judaism or Baha'i...  That last would be the easiest, since all it requires beliving is that almost all faiths are simply different revelations of the same God.  I'm kinda half way there already.

Supersultry, are you Jewish now? I notice the flag of Judaism under your map.

No... I'm not.  I'm Catholic.  That's kinda a tongue-in-cheek joke... I do support Israel, but its kinda a "neo-con" thing... people say that neo-cons care more about Israel than they do America.

Then why are dalits in the cities still working in garbage dumps and hide tanning and other occupations without any health protection? It shouldn't take 60 years to end untouchability.

It wasn't meant to be funny.  It was meant to push your buttons, and it worked predictably and splendidly.

There are few things as alive and well as the caste system in India. It's just that most people, including most people who live within it don't understand it. And that it has been changing in relevant aspects.

And yes, you can theoretically convert, but there's no real place for a convert to Hinduism except as a Sadhu.

Scientology

This may be cheating, but I would become either a Conservative Jew or an Orthodox Jew.

Methodism

Anglicanism, Methodism and Pentacosalism. Yeah I am a pretty stalwart Protestant. No Catholics allowed :P.

Buddhism, though I’m not sure which kind. I’ve dabbled with LaVeyan Satanism in the past, but that was really not for me. I’d also consider the occult, but I’m too paranoid about going to hell to really think that would work out for me, even though I find the occult fascinating from a merely scholarly point of view. I like the whole message of Buddhism though, and find it to be generally compatible with what I believe. As of right now, I’m more or less an Agnostic who believe in the Christian God, but am undecided on who has the right ideas about what he really thinks, if there is truly only one right answer.

I would not leave Christianity.  I am presently Episcopalian.  I was born a Baptist and raised in Baptist and Christian & Missionary Alliance Churches.  I spent some time as a young adult in Pentecostal/Charismatic circles, but it didn't take.  So we spent eight years in the Churches of God (General Conference) and then, about ten years ago, became Episcopalian.  

I think we are in for life.  But if I did leave the Episcopal Church, I would strongly consider...

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
The United Methodist Church
The United Church of Christ
The Presbyterian Church (USA)
The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)

And if they would change and allow women to be ordained to ministry, I would look very hard at...

The Eastern Orthodox Church
The Missouri Synod Lutheran Church
The Orthodox Presbyterian Church

A number of my Baptist relatives believe I am Catholic already.  The Episcopal Church (The US branch of the Anglican Communion) can be pretty similar to the RCC. 

Actually, I could be okay with being Catholic if they dropped Papal infallibility, allowed the ordination of women and kept moving in the Vatican Two direction instead of the Opus Dei direction.

I'm currently Methodist, but I would consider Mahayana Buddhism, Baha'i, Unitarian Universalism (which is not on the list :(), and Quakerism (which is not on the list :()

Well same with me actually. For some reason though I am pretty anti-Catholic. I like some of the social beliefs on how God's laws transcend human laws, and some of their programs, but I never liked their Church structure, Saints, and other things.
The odd part is my Mexican side of the family is extremely Protestant, to the extent that when my Grandpa married my Grandma lots of the members of his family looked down on him for marrying a Catholic. While my German/Irish side of the family is fairly Catholic, and make jokes at my family for being "Evangelical".
It is like everything dealing with my family is opposite of the real world. lol

-------------------------------------

Those are still my top choices, plus Hinduism, though the only I way I could be pushed over the edge to convert to any one of these faiths would be if my significant other is a (practicing) adherent of one of them, and if she invites me to join her faith in marriage. 

I don't think I could see myself as Buddhist or Quaker anymore, though I'll always be a bit of a Quaker fanboy.  Bahá'í and Unitarian are both still possibilities, and I do plan on doing some church shopping when I go to grad school within the liberal Protestant denominations.

If I converted to Judaism, would I automatically get into Heaven?

that would save me a lot of time thinking about it.

I was raised Christian but, I'm at a point where I don't subscribe to any religion.  On a completely different note, I can't see myself subscribing to Catholicism (Not that I begrudge anyone who would, or does).  Basically, I don't adhere to a sect that believes a Pope is my gateway to heaven, which seems to neglect the basic foundation of the faith.

Yeah, I wouldn't either if that is actually what was taught.

     In no particular order:

Roman Catholic Church
Eastern Orthodox Church
Neo-Paganism

1. Eastern Orthodox (I am Catholic)
2. Atheism (not listed because one does not "convert" but still more likely for me than the other options)

1. I have always thought that there can only be at most one true religion and that if it lies withing Christianity it could hardly be somthing that started in the 16th century (or later) but should be something that can at least be traced back to Christ. I know some Protestants will claim that Catholicism wasn't founded by Christ, but I sure don't think Lutheranism was either, or Presbyterianism, or Methodism, etc. But with the Eastern Orthodox, well, who really knows what happened in the 11th century? I highly doubt I'd convert to anything, but if I did, Eastern Orthodox would be the most likely.

2. If I ever lost my Catholic faith, I bet I'd lose hope for religion all together. If everything I've ever believed was a lie I don't think I could ever trust any new (for me) set of beliefs either. I could see myself going through some sort of depressive rebellion ending up an atheist before I could see myself converting to a non-Christian religion (other than possibly Judaism).

If you want to do it properly (i.e., Orthodox Jewish style), it would just be the matter of lengthy instruction (in the face of active rabbinical discouragement) and completely changing your lifestyle forever to conform with all the minute regulations that a Jewish man is subject to. If at any time between your conversion and your death you are observed to relapse to heathen lifestyle, your conversion is likely to be declared never to have taken place. So, drawing blood from your penis would really be the least of your worries :))

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the
salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope
Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctum, 1302.)

I'm not comfortable with the history of the Catholic church.  However, at present day I do appreciate the recent efforts of the church to renounce some past wrongs.  Pope Benedict XVI seems to at least understand this.  Having said that, I don't think any religious establishment can be perfect and I bring this up only because I've read more about Catholicism then most other religions.

A papal bull asserting temporal power seven hundred years ago is not doctrine.  Salvation is through Christ and the Church is taught to be a vehicle of that salvation.  

"This is the sole Church of Christ, which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic." These four characteristics, inseparably linked with each other, indicate essential features of the Church and her mission. The Church does not possess them of herself; it is Christ who, through the Holy Spirit, makes his Church one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, and it is he who calls her to realize each of these qualities.

The Pope's authority is based on its apostolic succession from Peter and that is where much of doctrinal basis for Roman supremacy stems.

“The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the ‘rock’ of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. ‘The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.’ This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.”

The Pope is a regular human being and as such is fallible.  He is not worshiped. The Pope and Magisterium is only taught to be infallible when speaking ex cathedra on matter of faith and morals.  

Forgive me.. So excommunication means nothing then?  I suppose it's a nice little way to say go  yourself, without having a long history of "damning someone to hell."  It's the history I'm not comfortable with.  I don't see Catholics as bad people.  I just don't agree with some historical aspects of the church nor, do I agree with some scripture.  For example, the convenient absence of

"You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments."

I guess the Church couldn't really please the pagan converts unless they decided to forgo including this in the ten commandments. 

Furthermore, and not that this is really relevant to the argument but, what's up with Christianity changing the Sabbath?  It seems pretty clear that the 7th day is Saturday.  "After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And suddenly there was a great earthquake. . . ."

Re: Your idolatry implication- I wont try to re-invent the wheel with my own refutation
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/idolatry/page2

Why does the Catholic Church permit the use of statues for religious purposes in defiance of God's prohibition against the carving of statues in Exodus 20:4-5?     
”
A:

The Catholic Church does not defy any of God's commandments. Your question reveals an ignorance of the biblical facts surrounding statues. In Exodus 20:4 God condemned the carving of statues for the sake of worshipping them as idols--a blasphemy the Catholic Church also condemns. In Exodus 25:18-20, on the other hand, God commands Moses to carve statues for a religious purpose: two cherubim which would sit atop the Ark of the Covenant.

Notice that these angelic images were to serve such an exalted purpose (not because the statues themselves were in any way intrinsically exalted but because of the use to which they would be put) that God was very exacting in the instructions he gave Moses as to the materials to be used and the posture in which they were to be carved. Similar divine commands to carve statues and embroider images of various religious objects are found in Exodus 21:6-9, Numbers 21:6-9, 1 Kings 6:23-28, and 1 Kings 7:23- 39. In each case, the statue or embroidered image was intended by God for a religious use.

Although the worship of anything, not just statues, in place of the True God is idolatry, there are times when statues are not just tolerable but recommended. Just as those Old Testament statues were ordered fashioned by God to reminded the Israelites of heavenly realities, Catholic statues of Jesus and the angels and the saints serve the same purpose.

That's certainly a good point.  The following information certainly would have cleared that up for me.  Out of interest, what's your opinion on Christianity adopting Sunday as the sabbath?

The Catholic Church during the Council of Trent (1545-1563) issued a clear statement concerning images and statues. According to the 25th Session of this General Council:

"The images of Christ and of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the saints are to be had and retained particularly in churches, and due honor and veneration are to be given them; not that any divinity or virtue is believed to be in them on account of which they are to be worshipped, or that anything is to be asked of them, or that trust is to be reposed in images, as was of old by the Gentiles, who placed their hopes in idols; but because the honor which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which these images represent; so that we through the images which we kiss...or bend the knee, adore Christ and venerate the saints, whom they represent. [The Canons & Decrees of the Council of Trent (TAN Books, 1978) p. 215-6]"

 

Well, I dont really follow much observance of either Saturday or the Lord's day these days so may not be the best to ask my views on this.  However, I think Jesus represents a new covenant and we are not bound by certain mosaic laws and practices like circumcision or Saturday observance. Being the day of the Lords resurrection, I think Sunday is a fine time to celebrate the Eucharist as a faith community.

I understand that Jesus represents a new covenant but, shouldn't it be attempted to adhere to biblical law as much as possible?

Forget that noise..  I like bacon and cheeseburgers  ;).

I think if something is relevant to morals or faith then sure. However, I don't think Christians should be slavish to Mosaic traditions.

we're not under the Law of Moses, that Sabbath was simply a shadow of the real Sabbath (eternal rest of Heaven), which can now only be entered into through faith in Jesus.  See Heb 3:7-4:10; Col 2:16-17..


now, that command has morphed into making every effort to enter that rest

bro, the Jews didn't bow down in front of those statues, they were just there for symbolism of future events.  the problem I have with the Catholic statues is not that they exist within the church buildings (i dont have a problem with the Lincoln Memorial either), but rather that they are used

Pretty much only Reform Judaism.

I'm content with my mix of Buddhism/Confucianism/Taoism, but I admit I have a soft spot for the Anglican liturgy and the social gospel of Methodism.

What do you mean by used? People arent praying to a statue and it is not part of the Mass.
I dont see a problem with an old woman lighting a candle in front of a statue of Jesus.  She is praying to God and not an object.  I dont see a problem with physical representations of God to remind the faithful.  I also don't see what the big deal is to represent Mohammed, so to each their own.

well, if it is not being used in prayer, then why do you place it in front of a station of prayer?  if you know many Christians have a problem with them, why not simply remove them from the prayer stations?

as far as candles are concerned....what is the purpose of those within churches that have electric lights?  the way it appears, the statues and candles are a crutch because they have become part of your practice.

it would be like my church handing out pickles that we spun prior to praying....after a while, outsiders would start to think there is some purpose of the pickles and some would call us idolaters....but since we don't believe there is any value in spinning pickles, we don't do it.

Why should Catholics or Orthodox Christians do that? To please Evangelicals? There are plenty of areas of scripture and practice where we disagree.  On this I will just say it is best to agree to disagree.

so you're willing to keep a stumbling block in place when at the same time you're claiming the stumbling block is not used as part of your worship?

i.e. if the statues and candles are not necessary and if they create a point of contention and create an offense, then why have statues and candles?

*hughughug* ;D

jmfcst that's a pretty ridiculous demand. You're basically saying Catholics should change their ways because other Christians don't like it. Do you see the logical issue here? I'm sure many evangelicals would be offended by people including the minister wearing jeans to church, but that doesn't mean any church I go to is going to change on that.

Yeah I am defending Catholicism here. That should tell you something.

Rom 14:13 "make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way."

1Cor 8:13 "if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall."

1Cor 9:22 "To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."

In other words, you put aside everything not fundamentally necessary, even your own freedoms, in order to save others.  Which is why I dont eat "unclean" meat in front of those who believe it is unclean.

Therefore, if the Catholics are not involved in idolatry with their statues, then why dont they lay aside their statues?  Since there is no command in the NT to make statues, then certainly they wouldn't be sinning by removing them.  And, trust me, it would go a LONG way to bridging the gap between Catholics and Protestants if the Catholics were to lay aside all their trinkets and statues.

Heck, no doubt there's probably a bunch of protestants who think there is spiritual value in having a cross hanging in their homes, as if somehow hanging a symbol of Christianity protects their household from the forces of evil.  That's idolatry...instead of using a cross simply to witness to others that you believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

so, please, dont try to tell me the Catholics dont think there is some spiritual force endowed upon them by having all these trinkets and statues surrounding them.  And, again, I'll throw many protestants into that same category.

When you read the book of Acts, or any other part of the NT, do you see any power being displayed through the use of trinkets and statues to overcome evil, or does the power of a person to overcome come through having the Holy Spirit within?

Heck, there is even a case where specific needs were met by items that were blessed and carried to those who beyond the reach of the laying on of hands, but there is no mention that these items were retained beyond their immediate need:

Acts 19:11 "God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, 12 so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them."

And the very next verse backs up the idea that symbolism or the attempted invoking of another person's relationship with Christ does not amount to a hill of beans when it comes to power over evil:

Acts 19:13 Some Jews who went around driving out evil spirits tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who were demon-possessed. They would say, “In the name of Jesus, whom Paul preaches, I command you to come out.” 14 Seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this. 15 One day the evil spirit answered them, “Jesus I know, and I know about Paul, but who are you?” 16 Then the man who had the evil spirit jumped on them and overpowered them all. He gave them such a beating that they ran out of the house naked and bleeding.

If trinkets and statues were necessary, then the early Chruch would not have survived because they were so persecuted they were lucky to escape with the clothes on their back.  After all, it was belief in the word of God that allowed people to tap into the power of God.  So, why after beginning with the power of faith in God's word, would you attempt to derive power or protection from trinkets and statues?  it makes no sense.

It's kind of like the Galatians, who after receiving the Holy Spirit through faith in Christ, attempted to mix the Law of Moses into their practice:

Gal 3:5 "Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?"

Likewise, to the Catholics I would say,  "Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you include statues in your practice, or because you believe what you heard?"  So since statues have nothing to do with the power of God, but rather it is about believing the testimony about Christ, don't make them a part of your religious practice since they will only serve in cluttering up the path between you and Christ. 

For cluttering up your path to God has always been Satan's goal, and he does so not by replacing truth with a lie, but rather by mixing lies with the truth.  That's what he did to Eve in garden, Satan took a truth and added a lie to it.  Satan has never cared how religious people get, he simply wants to clutter the truth, which is what he did to the churches in Galatia.

And even though they were deceived into mixing stuff that didn't belong in the practice of Christianity, the churches of Galatia were STILL Christian.  They still believed in Christ.  Yet Paul wrote to them the most emotional letter of the NT, perplexed that they had allowed men to convince them to clutter their salvation to the point that Paul claimed that those very same churches had lost connection with Christ.

And Paul basically said to the churches of Galatia, "You've cluttered your religion with a bunch a junk.  Clutter it enough, and you will lose, or have already lost, connection with Christ.  For all your power in God - his salvation, his grace, his forgiveness of your sins, his gift of the Holy Spirit, his ability to overcome sin  - is tied to your belief in the word of God regarding his Son, Jesus Christ, and nothing else.  Period.  End of Story."

---


yes, it does, and I am sure my Catholic brothers are comforted by your support.  :p

So most here, if given a choice, would convert to Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Theravada Buddhism.  

Interesting....

I removed my vote and re-voted:

Pentacostalism
Anglicanism
Methodism

::) No

One of the Buddhisms or neo-paganism, though certainly not Wicca - more probably a reconstructonist variant.

I thought you were a fellow Pentacostal. My vote would be between Eastern Orthodox or a return to Methodism.

No my church is neo-charismatic but not Pentecostal. We don't practice speaking in tongues. But I would rather be in a liberal Pentecostal church (yes they exist) than anything non-Christian or a boring, ritualistic church. I wouldn't ever go to a church where people didn't raise their hands in worship. That's like going to a hardcore show without moshing.

that would be a tad hard to practice

I voted Mahayana Buddhism originally?  Weird.  I'd now say:

Reform Judaism
Baha'i
Anglicanism

Write-in: Unitarian Universalism, though, in front of any of these.